Bradley Manning finally fesses up over WikiLeaks…

But it's not a guilty plea, just a legal move to possibly set up a deal.

Bradley Manning, the US Army Private First Class accused of leaking classified documents from his post in Iraq to WikiLeaks, has made a formal offer of responsibility in his pre-trial hearing in Fort Meade, Maryland.

To be clear, Manning has not pled guilty or not guilty in the case, where he has been accused of espionage, computer fraud, and “aiding the enemy," among other charges. But this marks the first time Manning has offered to accept formal responsibility for leaking government documents to WikiLeaks. If found guilty in the case, Manning could face the death penalty.

Kevin Gosztola, a blogger who has been in attendance during the Manning case, noted the legal maneuver could pave the way to a deal where Manning could plead guilty to lesser charges.

“Pleading to lesser-included offenses makes it possible to not plea to committing offenses under the Espionage Act or Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),” he wrote. “Importantly, he can plead guilty without accepting the government’s charge that he ‘aided the enemy’ or ‘exceeded authorized access’ on his computer.”

The judge, Col. Denise Lind, must now decide whether or not to accept this offer. Ars requested comment from the judge and Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, but did not receive any immediate reply.

Promoted Comments

I'm not in the military and I'm a Canadian, but leaking documents seems like something to try a soldier for.

These things were maliciously declassified. It could be a latrine duty schedule but in the wrong hands could be used maliciously. If you don't try a soldier for something like uploading files to a website like WikiLeaks alone then surely if he accessed anything on systems he was not authorized to that would be sufficient to penalize him. This seems like a specific effort to avoid the two worst crimes (according to the article). I don't know enough about military law but perhaps it allows him to avoid the death penalty as well.

Seems that some readers are a little annoyed at this guy. They don't seem to care about the fact that he leaked documents showing his government lied, and was doing things it said it wouldn't do.

If the US government had been permitted to get away with what it's doing now back then, the guys who reported Watergate would have been charged with theft of government secrets. Is that really a good thing?

I note also that people are saying "people died because of this". Well actually, Wikileaks removed the names before publication. Wikileaks offered to work with the appropriate authorities to make sure publication would not put lives at risk. And in response, the "appropriate authorities" are trying to ensure that governments don't leak. Leaks happen because people are doing something wrong/immoral/illegal, and someone makes the brave decision to challenge it - not because people are "fraternising with the enemy". Executing Bradley Manning would be a triumph of silence in the face of lost liberty.

Private First Class officer makes no sense. He's a Private First Class. It's not even a non-commissioned officer rank. There's nothing officer about it.

Yeah, a PFC is in no way an officer of any sort. The word officer needs to be removed. "Private First Class" is descriptive enough on its own. If he were an officer, one might just as properly use the phrase "US Army Major".

Putting massive amounts of sensitive military information out there is harmful to us and helpful to our enemies. He is being tried for the act of giving out the information, not specific consequences of the act. You don't need specific examples unless you are looking to firm up your death-penalty case.

I seriously doubt his ability to make any informed and/or objective decision given his detention conditions. Anything he says or does should be taken with a grain of salt. I am surprised he didn't confess to JFK murder.

I'm not in the military and I'm a Canadian, but leaking documents seems like something to try a soldier for.

These things were maliciously declassified. It could be a latrine duty schedule but in the wrong hands could be used maliciously. If you don't try a soldier for something like uploading files to a website like WikiLeaks alone then surely if he accessed anything on systems he was not authorized to that would be sufficient to penalize him. This seems like a specific effort to avoid the two worst crimes (according to the article). I don't know enough about military law but perhaps it allows him to avoid the death penalty as well.

Seems that some readers are a little annoyed at this guy. They don't seem to care about the fact that he leaked documents showing his government lied, and was doing things it said it wouldn't do.

If the US government had been permitted to get away with what it's doing now back then, the guys who reported Watergate would have been charged with theft of government secrets. Is that really a good thing?

I note also that people are saying "people died because of this". Well actually, Wikileaks removed the names before publication. Wikileaks offered to work with the appropriate authorities to make sure publication would not put lives at risk. And in response, the "appropriate authorities" are trying to ensure that governments don't leak. Leaks happen because people are doing something wrong/immoral/illegal, and someone makes the brave decision to challenge it - not because people are "fraternising with the enemy". Executing Bradley Manning would be a triumph of silence in the face of lost liberty.

The US Army are to blame too, reading his profile on Wikipedia it seems the guy was pretty damn unstable, and they knew it. He'd already been caught and punished for discussing sensitive information, and they believed he was a risk to others yet they still posted him to Baghdad. It's no wonder he cracked and dumped what he could to a flash disk, probably just to spite his commander.

I have no problem with what wikileaks did, they should be allowed to publish leaks no matter where they come from. It doesn't seem to have been malicious, they redacted stuff they considered dangerous and only release what they considered safe.

They may have been wrong about it being safe, but it was their judgement call to make and they should be allowed to make it. We need to protect the rights of people who disagree with what the military is doing - that is far more important than protecting the lives of soldiers who willingly stepped into a dangerous job.

But Manning is another story. A soldier sworn to serve his country, deliberately releasing state secrets... that is just about the most serious crime anyone can commit.

On the other hand, why was he allowed access to those state secrets in the first place? I hope whatever punishment he receives takes that into account. The death penalty should be reserved for terrorists who work their way into a position of authority and then leak stuff. This guy probably doesn't deserve that.

Maybe I'd feel different about this if a draft was still in effect but it isn't.

Bradley Manning entered into the military of his own free will and as such, agreed to abide by it's rules and policies; it seems he violated those policies and put a lot of people at risk around the world, and not just other US military personnel.

His actions, for whatever reason, were reckless. I don't take pity on him. I may not agree with some of the policies and lies of the government that came to light but he wasn't selective in what information he leaked.

If the US government had been permitted to get away with what it's doing now back then, the guys who reported Watergate would have been charged with theft of government secrets. Is that really a good thing?

This is a completely different scenario. In the Watergate scandal a security guard discovered the break-in and reported it - he was just acting appropriately in the course of his job. If the same man had broken into the white house and stolen documents that revealed the same facts, he likely would have been prosecuted.

Manning acted in direct defiance to the UCMJ, which all military personnel are bound by the same as civilians are bound by civil and criminal law. On moral and ethical grounds I don't completely disagree with what Manning did, but he knew he was breaking some serious military regulations which he had agreed to follow, and should be expected to face the consequences of his actions.

No matter what, death is on the table in this case. The penalties for those crimes are "as a Court Martial may direct." The military operates under a whole different regimen of law than the civilian world, something it is extremely healthy to remember while you are in uniform. Only in the case of the charge of Treason is it taken out of the court's hands, that punishment being mandated by the Constitution: In all cases that shall be death.

Seems that some readers are a little annoyed at this guy. They don't seem to care about the fact that he leaked documents showing his government lied, and was doing things it said it wouldn't do.

If the US government had been permitted to get away with what it's doing now back then, the guys who reported Watergate would have been charged with theft of government secrets. Is that really a good thing?

I note also that people are saying "people died because of this". Well actually, Wikileaks removed the names before publication. Wikileaks offered to work with the appropriate authorities to make sure publication would not put lives at risk. And in response, the "appropriate authorities" are trying to ensure that governments don't leak. Leaks happen because people are doing something wrong/immoral/illegal, and someone makes the brave decision to challenge it - not because people are "fraternising with the enemy". Executing Bradley Manning would be a triumph of silence in the face of lost liberty.

If he was just a whistle blower and released certain information showing crimes were committed after going through the proper channels with nothing being done, this would be a different conversation. He wasn't a whistleblower he released everything he could get his hands on (much of it possibly being dangerous if the names weren't redacted, which wiki did not manning) all because he had an axe to grind. Then he went an bragged about it getting himself caught. Even if he didn't agree with the military at all he signed up willingly and took an oath to uphold the justice code. On top pf that he signed even more papers stating that it is considered treason to leak classified information. So this isn't even a case of a young kid who hacked in and wound up getting in way over his head.

One of the leaks was video of a US helicopter shooting unarmed people, then shooting civilians who tried to help them. This Video www.collateralmurder.comExposing proof of war crimes apparently is treason.

So were the people who founded the United States of America. For that matter, so were the founders of many, many nations. Ultimately, heroism is determined not by the objective morality or justness of your cause but by your success in pursuing your aims.

After all, the founding fathers whom America so loudly revere were themselves deeply flawed men; slavers and tax dodgers, amongst many other sins. Be careful how you judge others, lest the hypocrisy of your own morality be revealed.

Have you guys actually seen some of the things he was able to release? There is a particular video that is highly damning and heartbreaking at the same time. War is war, but when you sit and watch this entire thing, well all I can really say is it is fucked up. Fucked up and wrong. Each and every person in the first half of the video is murdered, and the people who try to help get murdered as well. The only survivors are the children in the van that was demolished.

It is a touchy subject. Treason is unacceptable. Yet at the same time being a whistle-blower about horrific acts like shown in the video, do we not value that as thinking, civilized people?

Also, and I am not certain on this, didn't Wikileaks remove vital information from their releases? I do not know if this was part of the deal with the private, but it is worth considering. Either way it was my understanding that the information was screened before it was released.

I will add that I myself served as a proud member of our armed forces. I was a fire support specialist in the army. We trained to kill our enemy, all of us, whoever that may be. But this is no enemy. These are innocent people. Imagine if you were a part of this. Imagine if you were that helicopter pilot. Now imagine what it would feel like when you found out what you had just done. I know myself personally, I would have a hard time living with myself after this. YMMV.

As those of you who watch the video will see, our government straight up lied about the incident, instead telling us it was a victory over a group of insurgents. Imagine how the surviving family members of those who were killed that day feel? If this is what happens in wars like these, how can we possibly win? Actions like these are all it takes to inspire any number of insurgents to join the ranks of those who are already fighting.

It's hard watching the video, and it is hard asking the questions you have to ask yourself after seeing the video, but it needs to be done. We pay for this. We are ultimately the ones responsible.

This is just me, but if I were Manning and I found this video, I would be in the same place he is right now. Everything else aside, I would release it. It's a tough call, but ultimately I would feel like an accomplice to mass murder if I did nothing.

That's my perspective anyway.

Edit- I just watched the video again and all I can say is I feel sick. I am embarrassed. This is the sort of thing our government does not want us to know about. No matter how you look at it, no matter how you spin it, this is the absolute worst representation of us as a nation I can think of in the modern era. This is something we will be judged by.

Maybe I'd feel different about this if a draft was still in effect but it isn't.

Bradley Manning entered into the military of his own free will and as such, agreed to abide by it's rules and policies; it seems he violated those policies and put a lot of people at risk around the world, and not just other US military personnel.

His actions, for whatever reason, were reckless. I don't take pity on him. I may not agree with some of the policies and lies of the government that came to light but he wasn't selective in what information he leaked.

Have you guys actually seen some of the things he was able to release? There is a particular video that is highly damning and heartbreaking at the same time. War is war, but when you sit and watch this entire thing, well all I can really say is it is fucked up. Fucked up and wrong. Each and every person in the first half of the video is murdered, and the people who try to help get murdered as well. The only survivors are the children in the van that was demolished.

This is just me, but if I were Manning and I found this video, I would be in the same place he is right now. Everything else aside, I would release it. It's a tough call, but ultimately I would feel like an accomplice to mass murder if I did nothing.

That's my perspective anyway.

Manning did not find that video, that video was leaked and really was what made wikileaks famous, the information Manning leaked was all from the state department and diplomatic cables. If I remember correctly from previews news stories Manning didn't have much, if any access to military files.

So if anything Manning and wikileaks hurt diplomatic efforts and undermined the ability of the state department to resolve and monitor conflicts and potential conflicts around the world to avoid war.

It is a little sad that this has gone on so long and it doesn't seem appropriate to put someone to death for this.

There are few things I think people should be put to death for. Mass murder, serious election tampering, and treason. (I would not claim an honest whistle-blowing effort to be treason, but this case does not seem to be anything of the sort.)

harteman wrote:

Also, and I am not certain on this, didn't Wikileaks remove vital information from their releases? ... Either way it was my understanding that the information was screened before it was released.

They were screening it, but since they were careless, the entirety of the information was breached August of last year.

Have you guys actually seen some of the things he was able to release? There is a particular video that is highly damning and heartbreaking at the same time. War is war, but when you sit and watch this entire thing, well all I can really say is it is fucked up. Fucked up and wrong. Each and every person in the first half of the video is murdered, and the people who try to help get murdered as well. The only survivors are the children in the van that was demolished.

This is just me, but if I were Manning and I found this video, I would be in the same place he is right now. Everything else aside, I would release it. It's a tough call, but ultimately I would feel like an accomplice to mass murder if I did nothing.

That's my perspective anyway.

Manning did not find that video, that video was leaked and really was what made wikileaks famous, the information Manning leaked was all from the state department and diplomatic cables. If I remember correctly from previews news stories Manning didn't have much, if any access to military files.

So if anything Manning and wikileaks hurt diplomatic efforts and undermined the ability of the state department to resolve and monitor conflicts and potential conflicts around the world to avoid war.

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but he surely did leak both the video and the diplomatic cables and was charged for it.

He was a intelligence analyst in training apparently, and used the security access to obtain the cables and videos and as such, clearly did have access to military files.

I'm not in the military and I'm a Canadian, but leaking documents seems like something to try a soldier for.

These things were maliciously declassified. It could be a latrine duty schedule but in the wrong hands could be used maliciously. If you don't try a soldier for something like uploading files to a website like WikiLeaks alone then surely if he accessed anything on systems he was not authorized to that would be sufficient to penalize him. This seems like a specific effort to avoid the two worst crimes (according to the article). I don't know enough about military law but perhaps it allows him to avoid the death penalty as well.

Putting someone on death penalty for an issue this publicized and divisive probably isn't something the government wants to do right after such a close election.

Alexko wrote: I wonder what enemy he's supposed to have aided exactly, and how.

Putting massive amounts of sensitive military information out there is harmful to us and helpful to our enemies. He is being tried for the act of giving out the information, not specific consequences of the act. You don't need specific examples unless you are looking to firm up your death-penalty case"

Have you guys actually seen some of the things he was able to release? There is a particular video that is highly damning and heartbreaking at the same time. War is war, but when you sit and watch this entire thing, well all I can really say is it is fucked up. Fucked up and wrong. Each and every person in the first half of the video is murdered, and the people who try to help get murdered as well. The only survivors are the children in the van that was demolished.

This is just me, but if I were Manning and I found this video, I would be in the same place he is right now. Everything else aside, I would release it. It's a tough call, but ultimately I would feel like an accomplice to mass murder if I did nothing.

That's my perspective anyway.

Manning did not find that video, that video was leaked and really was what made wikileaks famous, the information Manning leaked was all from the state department and diplomatic cables. If I remember correctly from previews news stories Manning didn't have much, if any access to military files.

So if anything Manning and wikileaks hurt diplomatic efforts and undermined the ability of the state department to resolve and monitor conflicts and potential conflicts around the world to avoid war.

You are blatantly lying. Whether you are ignorant or not is no excuse. Do not spread misinformation here. All sources point to him releasing the video, including charges that have been brought against him by our military. Manning himself also admitted to releasing the video.

No matter what, death is on the table in this case. The penalties for those crimes are "as a Court Martial may direct." The military operates under a whole different regimen of law than the civilian world, something it is extremely healthy to remember while you are in uniform. Only in the case of the charge of Treason is it taken out of the court's hands, that punishment being mandated by the Constitution: In all cases that shall be death.

There are quite a few spies incarcerated - not executed - specifically for treason, and as best as I can remember, they all did it for money (something the lawyers can truly comprehend).Bradley Manning publicly humiliated a lot of very powerful people by exposing them for how they took that very power for granted and by exposing the very machinery that lets them keep it.While I don't think state-sanctioned cold-blooded murder should ever be on the table for anything at all ever, there's no real or specific legal reason for it to be "on the table" now, so let's all call it the way it really is:The death penalty is on the table for one reason only: extreme butthurt.

I'm not in the military and I'm a Canadian, but leaking documents seems like something to try a soldier for.

These things were maliciously declassified. It could be a latrine duty schedule but in the wrong hands could be used maliciously. If you don't try a soldier for something like uploading files to a website like WikiLeaks alone then surely if he accessed anything on systems he was not authorized to that would be sufficient to penalize him. This seems like a specific effort to avoid the two worst crimes (according to the article). I don't know enough about military law but perhaps it allows him to avoid the death penalty as well.

I understand this is an opinion and not one I share but I'm puzzled why this would be an editor's pick. I am aware of no evidence that has been put forward or a ruling from any judge that has determined Bradley as guilty of the acts he's been accused of generally as the poster is suggesting. In my book, he remains innocent until then.

More importantly and not just for legal reasons, its important to keep in mind that Wikileaks and not Manning would be responsible for disseminating the information. It's one of the main reasons the US governments has made a strong push to classify Wikileaks, a publisher, as an enemy of the state (making stronger their case of 'aiding the enemy'). I also imagine because of the longitudinal effort this has been its not generally clear to most just which information is attributed to Manning and just how that information specifically could have (not) put anyone in danger.

I do know the realities of the legal system aren't quite white and black and there are legal ramifications for this particular manoever that must have been considered when this move was made. I am not his lawyers but this was hardly done in a vacuum that somehow betrays his wrong doing.

I do understand and relate that this isn't a straightforward issue for everyone. It involves concepts of loyalty, duty amongst others. But I do not find it congruent with the human ideal that wrong doing is beyond revelation because it has been 'classified'. It happens all the time but I am always taken aback when a commitment to the truth is attacked for not abiding by the "rules". As far as I'm concerned those trappings throughout history have usually been in place to keep the truth hidden

Finally as the whole saga is connected to major conflicts around the world, clarifying the truth isn't merely about us but recognizing the humanity of the people caught in this conflict. They may be the 'other', but oh, their humanity says everything about us.

It is a little sad that this has gone on so long and it doesn't seem appropriate to put someone to death for this.

There are few things I think people should be put to death for. Mass murder, serious election tampering, and treason. (I would not claim an honest whistle-blowing effort to be treason, but this case does not seem to be anything of the sort.)

Watch the video, then entertain the idea that he found and released it. Do you still have exactly the same opinion?

Seems that some readers are a little annoyed at this guy. They don't seem to care about the fact that he leaked documents showing his government lied, and was doing things it said it wouldn't do.

If the US government had been permitted to get away with what it's doing now back then, the guys who reported Watergate would have been charged with theft of government secrets. Is that really a good thing?

The Watergate comparison isn't analogous. The standards are different for a soldier -- or for anyone with security clearance, for that matter. Joe Citizen managing to uncover facts that the government would prefer to keep under wraps and then publishing that information is a completely different situation than someone being granted access to classified documents turning around and releasing those documents to the public.

Part of being granted security clearance is agreeing to keep the information you're being given access to secret. Bradley Manning consciously and deliberately violated that secrecy -- that's why he's being prosecuted. Had someone been able to release the exact same information without having to publish classified information to do so, then they wouldn't -- couldn't -- have been punished for it.

In other words, the crime wasn't "telling the public things the government doesn't want the public to know", it was "publishing information that it was his job to keep secret".